[Bêthberry]

I really want to thank Child for her post which has so strongly stimulated this most recent aspect of the topic at hand. And I want to thank davem for his insistence on defining the word mythology. Definitions are very helpful in forwarding discussion. They do not, however, necessarily influence human behaviour at the time of the act. (To use an analogy: I suppose there are some people who might stop and refer to their illustrated copy of the Kama Sutra and then return to the activity they were engaged in, but I doubt if many would find that kind of engagement really pleasurable, more an exercise in logistics. )

It is the modern scholars of mythology who davem references who have given us this sense of tribal superstitions and which claim that the religious aspects were paramount the ancient socieities. That is not to say these scholars have an objectively true explanation of what the mythologies meant: what they have is a definition/understanding which satisfies them in their time. They could be wrong--after all, social scientists display the same kind of scepticism which hard scientists claim.

From a narratological point of view, the idea that mythologies derive their power from the representation of religious belief is too limiting. Such an explanation does not really provide, for instance, an explanation of the power of narrative in our culture, which supposedly does not tremble in caves, but climbs in them for sport and leisure. What might be more important in terms of mythologies is not their truth factor (that is, their semantic content) but their psychological value. Mythologies may have derived their power from the importance of story telling to humans. It is the narrative act which gives mythologies their coherence and significance. Anyone who has ever been to a funeral will understand how those left behind use stories to deal with their grief and to celebrate the life that has passed. Story telling is a hugely important aspect of the human mind, both for individuals and for the group, be it familial, local, tribal, national, or world.

So what this could well mean to our exploration of mythology in Tolkien is that mythology may not necessarily have to have this component of belief system. It is the telling of the stories which is important, not whether the speakers actually think that Manwe or Yavanna (or their REB counterparts, as the case may be) will keep watch over them. Ritual is not limited to religion, and increasingly we understand that ritual (as opposed to fetish) has a place even in a modern or post modern world.

So, if it is true that a mythology is not written by one mind, but by many over the telling, (and for the record, I don't think that Tolkien's work was written by one mind, but represents the creative response of one mind to the myriad reading that one mind did.) then what might be going on here is indeed what Child speculated: a coming together over story, with various hands providing aspects of that story. It is entirely possible that mythologies in the cultures of the 21st century need not have religious compoments in order for them to have power in the communities which tell them. It is the very fact that so many hands are engaging in the storytelling of Middle earth that proves Tolkien did create the story components of mythology.

And I do hope I have provided a bit more humour for Raynor. And Fordim, who would have thought your canonicity thread would rise up again in new form?